How to prove someone is a conspiracy theorist., Chip shows us how Options

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Write a piece and source it in the bio.

[Rootology]

Whoa, I thought he couldn't add his own material as sources? Hello COI.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Whoa, I thought he couldn't add his own material as sources? Hello COI.

Hello WP:LINKSPAM.

[Somey]

Hello WP:LINKSPAM.

But it wasn't correctly formatted, so the link didn't work... that means it doesn't count as a COI, right?

Admittedly, if the Chipster would focus more of his attention on definitively far-right folks like Phylis Schlafly, I suspect fewer people would criticize him. (Link-spamming aside, of course!)

[The Joy]

And now the Conservapedians will come over to brawl?

Cue "Westside Story" music!

[Moulton]

And now the Conservapedians will come over to brawl?

Cue "Westside Story" music!

Roger that...

Web Side Story

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Admittedly, if the Chipster would focus more of his attention on definitively far-right folks like Phylis Schlafly, I suspect fewer people would criticize him.

Chip has never been the brightest crayon in the box. He's basically a semiliterate buffoon, but he is prized as a tag-team partner because of his extreme belligerency. Tag-teamers like SlimVirgin and Will Beback will get him involved, point him at the enemy, and say "sic 'em" -- Chip is a master baiter, and he can usually piss off the other team to the point where Slim or Will can ban some opponents for Personal Attacks, while defending Chip as the innocent victim of harassment or Stalking™. I think ultimately Chip may be banned for his behavior, but he's expendable, and those who avail themselves of his services will still be admins with a veneer of civility.

Incidentally, in one ArbCom case, Fred Bauder said that he had once met Chip in person, and that Chip lends "gravitas" to the project. After last year's abortive attempt by Marvin Diode to haul him before the ArbCom, Chip received words of maternal comfort from FloNight, who also publicly called for the Chipster to be given "more support.".

[Somey]

And now the Conservapedians will come over to brawl?

Not necessarily... While I obviously don't like Phylis Schlafly's politics (and I'm sure I wouldn't much like her personally either), I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. The fact is, she's a far more influential and legitimate political target for a not-so-self-respecting left-wing polemicist than someone like Lyndon Larouche, since Larouche isn't likely to influence undecided (and mostly elderly, I should think) voters in key US "swing states" to vote against Barack Obama, or for that matter, me. (Did I mention that I'm running for President?)

It seems like Chipper's primary motivation for going after Larouche has been to tar others with the "Larouche-ist" brush, mostly by cherry-picking and conflating various statements that are critical of some identity-group (which really isn't hard, since Larouche criticizes LOTS of people, including some that Chip himself criticizes). I doubt that he really cares much about Larouche's direct impact on US politics, nor should he - it just isn't that significant, even if LL had a concrete proposal for a manned Mars mission before anybody else did. (Outside of sci-fi circles, at least.)

OTOH, Phylis Schlafly has followers who not only vote for Republicans, but try to get other people to do so as well, who might not otherwise. So she's clearly more the sort of person Chip Berlet should be concentrating on, assuming he wants to make a real contribution to a general liberal resurgence.

[Proabivouac]

Chip is a master baiter…

[No one of consequence]

Just to be clear, he'd be banned for long-term COI.

Of course most of Wikipedia is CIO, it's just most people hide it.

Wikipedia likes to pretend it is edited by experts in various fields, and Chip falls into that category. The dividing line between expert contributions and conflict of interest is generally defined by who your friends and enemies are. Moulton, to pick one example, seems to have made no friends and a few powerful enemies. Chip has powerful friends, and his enemies (pro-LaRouche "POV pushers") have been sanctioned several times by Arbcom and are seen as a common enemy ("the enemy of my enemy...").

I think a case could be constructed against Chip that Arbcom could not ignore, especially given the decline of Slim and the departure from Arbcom of certain voices. But then it is a risk-reward calculation. What I might gain for myself by presenting such a case compared to what I might lose. And it appears that Chip is smart enough to not push the issue (he has not reverted the removal) which will weigh against any serious sanctions. Arbcom is likely to consider that the short-term goal of "avoiding disruption" is being met by Chip's silence in the face of reversion, and not look at the long term issue of how many articles have been distorted by COI edits that have not been detected or removed.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Thu 26th June 2008, 7:42pm

[Herschelkrustofsky]

While I obviously don't like Phylis Schlafly's politics (and I'm sure I wouldn't much like her personally either), I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. The fact is, she's a far more influential and legitimate political target for a not-so-self-respecting left-wing polemicist than someone like Lyndon Larouche, since Larouche isn't likely to influence undecided (and mostly elderly, I should think) voters in key US "swing states" to vote against Barack Obama, or for that matter, me. (Did I mention that I'm running for President?)

It seems like Chipper's primary motivation for going after Larouche has been to tar others with the "Larouche-ist" brush, mostly by cherry-picking and conflating various statements that are critical of some identity-group (which really isn't hard, since Larouche criticizes LOTS of people, including some that Chip himself criticizes). I doubt that he really cares much about Larouche's direct impact on US politics, nor should he - it just isn't that significant, even if LL had a concrete proposal for a manned Mars mission before anybody else did. (Outside of sci-fi circles, at least.)

OTOH, Phylis Schlafly has followers who not only vote for Republicans, but try to get other people to do so as well, who might not otherwise. So she's clearly more the sort of person Chip Berlet should be concentrating on, assuming he wants to make a real contribution to a general liberal resurgence.

Somey, I've got to beg to differ with your characterization of electoral politics. To begin with, no one should assume that Chip "wants to make a real contribution to a general liberal resurgence." Chip wants to get regular checks from the Ford Foundation, which doesn't give a rat's ass about liberal vs. conservative. The Ford Foundation represents folks who became wealthy and intend to remain wealthy through untrammeled financial speculation. Their strategy has been to exert a controlling interest over both parties, and they tend to remain aloof from the "wedge issues" like abortion, gun control, and so forth, which are the main ways that you can tell the two parties apart. On issues of importance to the oligarchy, such as deregulation, privatization, globalization, and so on, the two parties tend to march in lock-step.

Regarding LaRouche, he makes no statements "critical of some identity-group," although he does, as you say, "criticize LOTS of people." Chip's tactic is to say that if you criticize a person, you are implicitly criticizing any identity-group that person may belong to or associate with. That is to say, Chip's tactic is precisely the sort of thing that BLP should ruthlessly eliminate from Wikipedia.

LaRouche is less likely to influence elderly voters than he is to influence voters in the 18-25 year old group, which where his support is most notable these days. However, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. The threat that LaRouche poses comes from his insistence that the Democratic Party return to the FDR paradigm, of taking on the speculators, the ones FDR called the "economic royalists." Since the typical lower-income American is facing circumstances in the weeks ahead where he will be unable to afford gasoline or food, due to speculators like George Soros (who just bought a humongous chunk of ConAgra during the past 24 hours,) LaRouche's calls for intervention against the speculators are apt to strike a responsive chord -- Hillary Clinton already adopted his proposals for a freeze on mortgage rates and a ban on foreclosures, and consequently, she was stabbed in the back by the Wall Street tools like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. LaRouche youth activists are everywhere at every Democratic Party function, and I'm sure that this is making the Wall Streeters very anxious.

However, I don't think they will rely on Chip to deal with the problem this time. He's a burnt-out has-been, who must resort to Wikipedia now to get anyone to pay attention to him.

[LamontStormstar]

Just to be clear, he'd be banned for long-term COI.

Of course most of Wikipedia is CIO, it's just most people hide it.

Wikipedia likes to pretend it is edited by experts in various fields, and Chip falls into that category. The dividing line between expert contributions and conflict of interest is generally defined by who your friends and enemies are. Moulton, to pick one example, seems to have made no friends and a few powerful enemies. Chip has powerful friends, and his enemies (pro-LaRouche "POV pushers") have been sanctioned several times by Arbcom and are seen as a common enemy ("the enemy of my enemy...").

I think a case could be constructed against Chip that Arbcom could not ignore, especially given the decline of Slim and the departure from Arbcom of certain voices. But then it is a risk-reward calculation. What I might gain for myself by presenting such a case compared to what I might lose. And it appears that Chip is smart enough to not push the issue (he has not reverted the removal) which will weigh against any serious sanctions. Arbcom is likely to consider that the short-term goal of "avoiding disruption" is being met by Chip's silence in the face of reversion, and not look at the long term issue of how many articles have been distorted by COI edits that have not been detected or removed.

How odd. My post was deleted. I got no PMs on it and my post didn't violate policy. Only a fraction of it remains of what was quoted.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Sat 28th June 2008, 4:02am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

How odd. My post was deleted.

My bad. Your post wasn't deleted -- it was moved, along with a number of other posts in response to Milton Roe's comments, to this spin-off thread. This was done after consultation with other moderators, but I should have left a little note to this effect.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I think a case could be constructed against Chip that Arbcom could not ignore, especially given the decline of Slim and the departure from Arbcom of certain voices. But then it is a risk-reward calculation. What I might gain for myself by presenting such a case compared to what I might lose. And it appears that Chip is smart enough to not push the issue (he has not reverted the removal) which will weigh against any serious sanctions. Arbcom is likely to consider that the short-term goal of "avoiding disruption" is being met by Chip's silence in the face of reversion, and not look at the long term issue of how many articles have been distorted by COI edits that have not been detected or removed.

Chip has been far more cautious since the attempted arbcom case by Diode, and also the attempted RfC which was squelched by 172.

[Aloft]

Looks like Will Beback and FeloniousMonk have taken up his cause on that article.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Looks like Will Beback and FeloniousMonk have taken up his cause on that article.

That's standard symbiosis.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

But soft! An angry Chipster decides to make a stand, without waiting for surrogates.